Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
Very simply follows. The scientific method suggests that you should not introduce entities beyond what is necessary.
And here we have one necessary statement – the world exists. It is impossible to assume that it does not exist. There is a natural question-was there always peace or did it arise? Both answers are equal, and the choice between them is a matter of taste. But adding to” the world came into being ” the statement that it did not just come into being, but was created by the creator, who came into being for no reason, is no longer necessary. If we assume that something can arise without a cause, then it is easier to think that this is how the world came into being, without any intermediaries.
Therefore, until it is proved that the world could not have come into being by itself and that it needs a mediator, God will not be necessary. And everything that is not necessary is redundant and is cut off with Occam's razor.
However, the creation of the world does not exhaust the need for God, but there, in a similar way, it can be shown that he is not needed, you can always find a simpler scheme, whether it is a question of morality or the meaning of life.
The question is not correct.
Exactly the opposite: it is not atheism that follows from the scientific method of knowing the world, but the scientific method is a consequence of atheism.
What is atheism?! The most general concept, without dwelling on the types and types of atheism as such: it is the denial of existence beyond the natural, above the natural, outside of natural being or entities.
–
And now a little more about the scientific method of cognition. I will not reinvent the wheel, I will take the finished product:
Scientific cognition is a special type of cognitive activity aimed at developing objective, systematically organized and grounded knowledge about nature, man and society.
Features of scientific knowledge:
special (scientific) methods of cognition of the surrounding world;
striving for objectivity and authenticity: to explore the world as it is, regardless of the person;
exposure to rational criticism, verifiability;
rationality associated with consistency, evidence, and consistency.
You can follow the above instructions and stay… agnostic. But from my point of view, being agnostic is like being “neither fish nor meat”. As one of the ancients used to say: “This is not the third way. This is not the way at all.”
Therefore, the following is important: neither in the past, now, or in the future will the existence of God or gods EVER be proven. And if new knowledge about the World or natural phenomena is obtained, I can say for sure in advance that there will NEVER be anything divine in them, but everything will be built on the natural objective properties of our World.
It depends on how to interpret the word “atheism”, and they interpret it differently…
Strictly speaking, the scientific method means that you need to check and prove everything. It is impossible to prove the existence of a God or gods, and often the religions themselves explicitly state this.
Science cannot be based on such statements, which are based solely on faith.
Science does not infer the absence of God. Science can only say that it has found no direct evidence of Its existence. Or more precisely, the existence of such a God, which is described in the sacred texts. Since modern science has left almost no blank spots in the knowledge of the surrounding world, it is rational to assume that direct evidence of the existence of God will not be found. They don't exist.
This doesn't mean that It doesn't exist exactly. Pisces will probably not discover the existence of Space for the foreseeable future. Nor are we likely to discover the upper world beyond the material world, if it exists.
Very simply follows. Scientific methods allow us to logically explain natural phenomena by natural causes. God is not required for this and acts as an absolutely superfluous link.
It doesn't follow. I am a believer, just a Christian, but a believing rationalist. I have my own view of God (without offending anyone), and I'm trying to understand what It is. I wrote the book “The theory of everything that is not”, where I try to understand what God is, why He created our world and us, why He needs us. There is no mysticism here, I think only using some” beacons ” from the Bible, logic, expediency and intuition. Following Vernadsky's method, I take modern science into account through his principle of philosophical skepticism. But I don't pretend to have the final word.
A person's subjective beliefs in relation to a particular religion are only his subjective beliefs, which, moreover, may not correspond to reality at all.
Atheism is a denial of the existence of God, while the fact that He does not exist and the concept of God is only an invention of people is scientifically unprovable, so atheism has nothing to do with science.
Moreover, atheism does not meet the criteria of scientific falsifiability.
You can read more in this article.
But why do many atheists position themselves as people of science, given that the scientific method does not imply an atheistic worldview and atheism itself is not only unscientific, but also anti-scientific?
It's actually quite simple.
If such an atheist were to admit that his worldview is a belief that God does not exist, then he would have to deal with representatives of different religions on an equal footing, which he certainly does not want.
He puts the representative of a particular religion below himself and declares the presumption of innocence in relation to his worldview – that is, the statement that there is no God is true until this person is proved otherwise.
But why on earth is it true?
Such an atheist does not ask such questions and his critical thinking does not affect his own worldview, and if you ask him what reasons there are to believe that God definitely does not exist, he will simply turn the tables and demand that YOU prove the existence of God to him. He himself believes that the” burden of proof ” does not and cannot be on him.
Such are the cases.
Elementary, Watson: one of the principles of rational thinking is the so-called Occam's razor. The essence of this principle is that you should not produce entities unnecessarily. God is an extra entity in the knowledge of the world. Moreover, the concept of “God” as the supreme rational being who controls the entire universe and is unknowable in its essence can only prevent such knowledge, since in this case any phenomena can be explained by the whims of God, which are fundamentally unknowable and cannot be systematized and described on the basis of the laws of nature. Scientific knowledge, on the other hand, looks for patterns in reality and tries to systematize them. There is simply no place left for God in the usual sense of the word. I hope I answered your question.
Atheists only confirm that without faith, a person cannot exist yet. They built a Great Temple of Science, which they worship, maybe it's a new religion (in the future).
Yes, I know the answer to this question. My answer is that atheism is the belief that there is no God. At the same time, atheists do not know what exactly is hidden under this term. “God” is not a Being, it is infinity, an infinite Source of information-the laws of nature, according to which the universe is created and develops naturally and purposefully. Atheism is , indeed, the opium of the people, it is the basis of a materialistic worldview that does not reflect reality. Materialism should have been abandoned long ago, but the adherents of materialism will “lay down their bones” to defend this lie.
“Why do atheists refer to science, the scientific method, rational thinking – how does atheism follow from this?”
This question was best answered by Pierre Laplace.
When he spoke about his vision of the world order to Napoleon Bonaparte, the latter exclaimed::
But I don't see God here!
“Sire!” replied Laplace , ” I don't need that hypothesis!
Indeed, the modern scientific vision of the world does not need at all the participation of at least some “god”in it.
And if so, then, according to the principle of the same religious philosopher Occam, this is an extra link, and it is just as necessary as the fifth wheel of a cart or the fifth leg of a dog…
Atheism does not follow from science. Atheism is the denial of the existence of God. At the same time, an atheist can be quite an idealist. Buddhists, for example, are atheists. (In Buddhism, versions of the Buddha, not Tibetan lamas). These are different spheres of human activity.
In this case, the author of the question calls” atheism ” nothing more than positivism, the belief that knowledge is possible only through empirical research, not through intellectual understanding or, God forbid, irrational (for example, faith). This pop atheism is based on the failure of its adherents to understand the fundamental principles of knowledge of the world, an homage to the almighty science.
Now there will be a lot of disadvantages from believers. Because the task of religion is only one – to inspire poor serfs that they have no happiness in life, and if you plow for your uncle, then after death it will be rewarded to them. And smart or at least just thinking with their heads, at best, were completely stigmatized. Religion is an external regulator, created solely for the sake of control. It is not difficult to guess that all their dogmas are easily changed in accordance with the goals of certain interested circles. And in these circles, at all times, the interest is purely economic in nature.�
I hope I don't need to remind you whose words they are.�
And I will start the answer directly to the question with a quote from Neil Tyson.�
Yes, you, in fact, can think of this yourself, just by looking around.�
I will not talk about supernatural principles for the layman (for example, the Popper criterion). I'll just say that the whole point is that the scientific method implies maximum objectivity. In other words, atheism itself is just a consequence. A consequence of a certain type of thinking that does not allow a person to make fundamental mistakes. As a person with a technical background, I know from my own experience that getting and applying specific knowledge without a particular type of thinking is like suicide.�
I hope I answered your question, unlike the previous “experts”.